Rooted or Transplanted

Structures of integration often lag far behind the act of taking itself. Policies, laws, and institutions only begin to adapt once the weight of what has been taken becomes “too much” to ignore. It is reactive at best. After working in the public space domain, I can best illustrate this by looking at the journey of oak trees on this side of the Atlantic. When trees are transplanted from other climates into Dutch soil, there is no systemic design for their growth and belonging. They are expected to serve their function until they simply have nothing left to give; they have given it all. They are tired. And when they no longer thrive, they are replaced.

The solution that policy makers and environmental experts propose is to import new trees from other countries, ones that are already acclimated to the climate. Though note that the climate itself is ever changing, making this a continuous cycle of taking, planting, and discarding (Verkaik, Moraal, & Nabuurs, 2009; Chakraborty et al., 2024). I’m not an expert myself, but I do enjoy putting on my philosophical cap and wonder: why not allow what is unique to this country to thrive, to develop resilience and new adaptations within its own soil, rather than forcing foreign environments? My history cap is begging to be put on, but we'll leave that for another day.

Trees are expected to perform, “do the job,” but not always given the time, space, or resources to truly acclimatize and grow from seed to maturity in foreign soil. They are here to fill a need without deeper reflection on sustainability, integration, or reciprocity. They are expected to thrive quickly, and when they struggle, they are often discarded as they stop serving their original purpose. But true integration requires development within context aside from transplantation.

If we extend this metaphor, although very real, from forests to societies, the parallels are as loud the noise a tree makes when it falls in an empty forest. Just as transplanted trees are named, sorted, and valued differently, people too are categorized in ways that shape how they are allowed to grow.

Take the language of “expat” versus “immigrant.” Expat sounds luxurious, temporary, and prestigious, while immigrant carries heavier, less privileged connotations (Leiden Anthropology Blog, 2016). Yet the intentions behind the move do not always match the label. Some expats stay permanently, while some immigrants come only for a few years. So is it really about the intentions or are we pre-labeling people based on perceived value? Once a label is applied, it reshapes how people are treated, and even how they see themselves, so we have be to intentional here (Becker, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001).

A society raised in a culture of extraction develops a worldview of entitlement. Resources come to them; knowledge comes to them; labor comes to them. They live off the legacy of taking. Historically, Europeans traveled to Egypt to study science and medicine, or to Central Africa for metals and minerals (Bernal, 1987). Bringing back the knowledge without credit and erasing the steps as they go, like they're footsteps in the sand and convincing people the treasures have always been there. With treasures, I'm refering to material treasures. Today, information, culture, and value often flow toward the Global North through modern infrastructures of infiltration, again without reciprocal recognition (Bhambra, 2009).

Meanwhile, the people who historically supplied the knowledge, resources, or labor often end up displaced, moving to the very countries that once extracted from them. And when they arrive, they are told they don’t belong. The contradiction is staggering. The resources are welcome. The people are not?

Sociological and psychological research backs this. Stay with me now.

• Immigrants from non-Western backgrounds face barriers in Dutch labor markets compared to Western “expats,” even with equivalent education (Andriessen et al., 2010).

  
  

• Language reflects privilege: English is accommodated for expats, but immigrants are expected to assimilate linguistically and judged harshly if their Dutch is imperfect (Leiden Anthropology Blog, 2016).

  
  

• Social climate influences ambition. Young immigrants who grow up hearing they don’t fully belong internalize lower expectations, affecting their willingness to pursue advanced education. This aligns with stereotype threat (Steele, 1997) and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

So the difference between “expat trees” and “immigrant trees” is not only linguistic. Expat trees are celebrated, accommodated, and given the conditions to grow. Immigrant trees are expected to prove themselves endlessly, often in soil never tilled for them in the first place.

And this is the heart of the critique

If one keeps importing without creating structures for growth, one repeats the same cycle of taking without cultivating and expecting performance without belonging. That cycle shapes the soil itself. It defines the mindset of those who believe they belong by default, and those who are told they never truly will. They are both tired.

References

Andriessen, I., Nievers, E., Faulk, L., & Dagevos, J. (2010). Ethnic discrimination in the Dutch labor market: Its relationship with job characteristics and multiple group membership. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 23–42.

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.

Becker, J. C., et al. (2022). Migrants’ social integration and its relevance for national identification. PLoS ONE, 17(1), e0262002.

Bernal, M. (1987). Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Rutgers University Press.

Bhambra, G. K. (2009). Rethinking modernity: Postcolonialism and the sociological imagination. Palgrave Macmillan.

Chakraborty, S., et al. (2024). Assisted tree migration can preserve the European forest. Nature Climate Change, 14, 567–575.

Leiden Anthropology Blog. (2016). Expatriates or immigrants? Navigating in-between categories in the Netherlands. Leiden University.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Verkaik, E., Moraal, L. G., & Nabuurs, G. J. (2009). Potential impacts of climate change on Dutch forests. Alterra, Wageningen UR.